Spansion Plays Hardball With Patents

In addition to the company's on-going legal battle with Taiwan's Macronix, Spansion is now turning up the heat on anyone -- memory companies and system vendors -- misusing its technology without getting consensus from the company. EE Times has learned that Spansion has recently sent letters to a list of memory companies and non-memory end users, warning them on potential patent infringement.

"We will not forget or forgive," said Ali Pourkeramati, senior vice president of strategic alliances and business development at Spansion, in a recent interview with EE Times.

Asked about the list of companies Spansion is squeezing, Pourkeramati declined to name names. However, he added, "They know who they are, because they already received letters from us."

Renesas vs. Spansion
Renesas Electronics could be one of those companies. Leveraging what's believed to be its crown jewel 40-nanometer embedded flash technology, Renesas has been working with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to develop an embedded flash-based MCU platform licensable to other semiconductor suppliers.

A Renesas Electronics spokeswoman was unable to respond to EE Times's inquiry by press time, noting that an executive in charge is traveling.

As more MCU vendors look to embed larger memory inside their logic designs, both Renesas's eFlash and Spansion's eCT are destined to form a new battleground for IP battles.

Spansion made it clear that the company today is very serious about its IP protection. "We've got to make sure that whoever is using our IPs without license needs to be stopped," said Pourkeramati.

Technology licensing and heavy execution on its IP protection is "neither a side business nor an opportunistic strategy" for Spansion, he asserted.

Pourkeramati, a former CTO at Spansion, has been responsible for corporate business development since May 2012. His mission also includes licensing strategy. Over the last six months, "we've been creating a big team" for the enforcement of Spansion's IP protection, he noted.

Licensing programs
Spansion has put together licensing programs for both flash and eCT for embedded MCUs.

In the realm of flash technology in memory products, the company's floating gate technology has been licensed to XMC, a foundry based in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, Charge Trap (CT) technology for flash memory already has several licensees including Panasonic, Elpida (for NAND flash), and Macronix.

As for eCT in logic products, Spansion has licensed the technology at 40 nm to UMC (United Microelectronics Corp.), a foundry based in Taiwan. Pourkeramati says Spansion's eCT is open to license for other chip vendors. However, "anyone interested in the technology first has to come to us, and their products need to be fabricated by UMC."

Asked whether any rival MCU vendors would ever consider licensing eCT technology from Spansion while Spansion is also their competition, Pourkeramati said, "We will pick and choose who will get to license eCT." Spansion is confident that the company's eCT is particularly attractive to embedded MCUs, because it is modified and optimized for integration with logic. The technology enables the memory cells to scale very well with the advances in logic design, according to Spansion.

Of course, time isn't the only limiting factor here. It's more likely that bieing big enough as a company to pursue lawsuits while continuing to innovate on the side is what determines whether a company in fact chooses to do what it must to protect its IP. It's a luxury many companies don't have.

Junko Yoshida said: ...in the end, companies have to do everything in their power to protect their IPs. No questions about it.

Actually, I believe there is a question and a trade-off. When a company becomes a patent aggressor, it's often the case that the company has ceased to be a technological leader and must instead live off its existing patents and what it has purchased from others when the company had a lot of cash. Companies with great new ideas and great products are too busy developing those ideas and products to waste time preparing lawsuits. At least that's the impression I get, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

A public company has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize the company's value. If suing over dubious patents besmirches a company's reputation and makes it look like it's on its way down, that's not maximizing shareholder value.

The patent protection system is overdue for an overhaul. There are few truly unique innovations that deserve patent protection. Most are solutions that any competent engineer or scientist would come up with when faced with a specific problem. The current system results in a lot of work by accountants and lawyers that provides no real benefit to society.

@EFosters, as to the strength of Spansion's IPs, obviously, I think that's something for our legal system to decide. While I do understand that people are weary of all the news about IP battles, in the end, companies have to do everything in their power to protect their IPs. No questions about it.

We will see how far Spansion will take this (especially on eCT front).